Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Date
Msg-id 16675.1166588964@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>)
Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Force references to go through macros which implement the lookup for the
> appropriate type?  ie: LOGICAL_COL(table_oid,2) vs.
> PHYSICAL_COL(table_oid,1)  Perhaps that's too simplistic.

It doesn't really address the question of how you know which one to
use at any particular line of code; or even more to the point, what
mechanism will warn you if you use the wrong one.

My gut feeling about this is that we could probably enforce such a
distinction if we were using C++, but while coding in C I have no
confidence in it.  (And no, that's not a vote to move to C++ ...)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Companies Contributing to Open Source
Next
From: Shane Ambler
Date:
Subject: Re: effective_cache_size vs units